Thursday, November 11, 2010

"No Science, Fake Science?"

In “No Science, Fake Science and the Destruction of the Nation” by Alan Caruba, the author proves why Carbon Dioxide does not effect global warming. The author states that the major focus of EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) on Carbon Dioxide is considered ‘fake science’ because there is no scientific proof showing the disadvantages. The author proves his point by referring to arguments made by the Obama Administration, Dr. Klaus and his famous book “Convenient Myths”, and also the fake statements made by Dr. Humburg on July 2010, who is the chief scientist of the Environmental Defense. The major focus of this article is on proving the EPA wrong using scientific evidence and resources. In other words, doing what they did not, because EPA just used advertisement and false resources to get the attention of individuals who were already concerned about global warming.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot decrease or increase because it can only change its form. For example coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy are all different forms of energy, which are also elements of the American economy. He argues that the Cap-and-Trade including others involved in this dilemma are just wanting to control the Carbon Dioxide energy because it is the easiest and most simple way to destroy the nation’s economy, especially developed countries. If Carbon Dioxide was to be decreased, the only other resources of energy would be wind and solar, which are unreliable and unpredictable. By decreasing usage of such powers, each energy source will be affected, for example the price of all refineries such as oil would rise. The author refers to Clean Air Act, in 2009 they clearly stated that there is no reason for carbon dioxide to be cut down because it has no effect on the environment. Another recognizable resource that the author referred to is Dr. Klaus’ famous book “Convenient Myths”, which states that the atmosphere only contains 0.04% Carbon Dioxide and since the Industrial Revolution which occurred during the 18th to 19th century, the Carbon Dioxide percentage has only increased by 0.01%. He also includes that more Carbon Dioxide is actually beneficial for the atmosphere helping larger crop yields feed individuals worldwide.

The author refers to different scientific resource to prove his point in disagreeing with the focus of global warming on Carbon Dioxide energy. He provides facts including that the Earth’s living creatures need Carbon Dioxide to live, and also that in the past decade the global warming has decreased because solar energy has barely been used. The evidence used by the author is accurate because the data was gathered from educational resources, and further researches on the arguments included also prove that. The evidence and resources that are referred to, prove that his argument against EPA is actually correct and convincing. The author built a logical argument and as far as my researches, he included all the evidence needed to prove his argument. Because this article was finalized after the latest arguments of EPA (July 2010), the evidence and resources included are still accurate because no further research or adjustment have occurred due to my research. The author was successful in making his point, because previous to this article, the debate of the Carbon Dioxide conflict was unclear, and this article made a legitimate point using the right arguments.

Overall, I agree with this article and I was convinced because of the arguments the author provided using scientific evidence. The author expanded on the term ‘fake science’ and stated why he believes that the EPA is explained using such term. In my opinion, the author had a stronger argument compared to EPA because he used actual scientific facts and resources. EPA on the other hand, used their own chief scientist to stand up against Carbon Dioxide usage. The article’s length and sentence flow is good, and the author provided direct facts for his argument, not making the article longer than it should be. It is obvious that the author is an expert on writing about public affairs because of the different arguments he touched upon.